Posted
by
kdawson
on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @02:09PM
from the for-some-definitions-of-free dept.

eldavojohn writes "In a new whitepaper, China has declared the Internet to be 'the crystallization of human wisdom' and officially issued what appears to be a defense of its policies on Web censorship, while at the same time making contradicting statements like 'Chinese citizens fully enjoy freedom of speech on the Internet' and (in the same paper) 'Laws and regulations clearly prohibit the spread of information that contains content subverting state power, undermining national unity, [or] infringing upon national honor and interests.' The paper also claims some questionable superlatives such as 'China is one of the countries suffering most from hacking.' On the positive side, this 31-page document might be offered as an operating guide for businesses, like Google, looking to understand exactly what the law is surrounding the Internet in China. The document is a rare glimpse of transparency in China's regulations."

So, the Chinese Govt. lies to its people and has hoodwinked the vast majority into accepting its bullshit and authority. How is that any different than the United States? They have a gullible majority of population, we have Democrats and Republicans. Their government changes the rules on the fly and declares it always so, ours got us to pay income tax, believe the Fed is powerful over the sovereign states, and daily toss around unconstitutional legislation assuring us of the legalities of their bullshit cod

Do Chinese people enjoy freedom of speech on the Internet in a substantively different way than we do?
I can say whatever I want, except things that are against the law to say. It's the same system in China, but they have different laws. I'm no expert, but I think the only meaningful difference is that citizens cannot criticise the government -and don't get me wrong, that's a big difference, but they report they are trying a system where the nation is unified. Maybe I disagree with that approach, but I think it's suspect to say that China opposes freedom of speech when they only differ on a single issue.
Further, there are many laws here in Canada that limit speech, that don't have a corresponding law in China. Specifically, I'm thinking about race.

Further, there are many laws here in Canada that limit speech, that don't have a corresponding law in China. Specifically, I'm thinking about race.

I would posit that the difference in your Canada vs China comparison is that the laws are better defined for you than they are a Chinese citizen. Like, what the hell does "non-harmonious" mean exactly? You don't know but you seem to have lost your job because of it.

Think for a minute about what the phrase "speech against the government" could mean in China. Is saying "The Yang-tse river is so polluted!" considered speech against the Chinese government? Is complaining about your working conditions okay? Is criticizing the United States' copyright laws okay when your government has pledged time and time again to combat piracy?

I think the biggest issue is that all of the above can be against the law on a case by case basis decided by the state. In Canada, are you afraid of the government disliking you for some reason and then reviewing your internet usage and history to find something to prosecute you under?

Think for a minute about what the phrase "speech against the government" could mean in China. Is saying "The Yang-tse river is so polluted!" considered speech against the Chinese government? Is complaining about your working conditions okay? Is criticizing the United States' copyright laws okay when your government has pledged time and time again to combat piracy?

You know that well enough by the time you get out of grade school.

In Canada, are you afraid of the government disliking you for some reason and then reviewing your internet usage and history to find something to prosecute you under?

s/government/copyright organizations/ Yes.

There is no substantial difference between China and the US, except for the theatrics. Just to really earn my Troll mod, who was the last President who was neither Republican, nor Democrat? Who gets to choose the candidates for those parties? And most importantly, who were the last two candidates who received all their campaign contributions from *entirely* different sets of corporation

Just because you need to look it up doesn't mean they're not clearly defined.

You know that well enough by the time you get out of grade school.

Prevarication

Just to really earn my Troll mod, who was the last President who was neither Republican, nor Democrat? Who gets to choose the candidates for those parties? And most importantly, who were the last two candidates who received all their campaign contributions from *entirely* different sets of corporations?

Further, there are many laws here in Canada that limit speech, that don't have a corresponding law in China. Specifically, I'm thinking about race.

I would posit that the difference in your Canada vs China comparison is that the laws are better defined for you than they are a Chinese citizen. Like, what the hell does "non-harmonious" mean exactly? You don't know but you seem to have lost your job because of it.

Think for a minute about what the phrase "speech against the government" could mean in China. Is saying "The Yang-tse river is so polluted!" considered speech against the Chinese government? Is complaining about your working conditions okay? Is criticizing the United States' copyright laws okay when your government has pledged time and time again to combat piracy?

I think the biggest issue is that all of the above can be against the law on a case by case basis decided by the state. In Canada, are you afraid of the government disliking you for some reason and then reviewing your internet usage and history to find something to prosecute you under?

What is to say that those phrases don't have a more specific meaning in Chineese (I don't know Chinese, so I don't know). English is a very vague language as it is and the Chineese mindset is very different from the Anglosaxian-American.

I have had to explain the Swedish term "ministerstyre" (the Pirate Bay trials and some weapon system exports that slashdot haven't reported about) to a lot of English speaking people and it is really hard, not just because the English language lacks the words that is needed

I would posit that the difference in your Canada vs China comparison is that the laws are better defined for you than they are a Chinese citizen. Like, what the hell does "non-harmonious" mean exactly? You don't know but you seem to have lost your job because of it.

Think for a minute about what the phrase "speech against the government" could mean in China. Is saying "The Yang-tse river is so polluted!" considered speech against the Chinese government? Is complaining about your working conditions okay? Is criticizing the United States' copyright laws okay when your government has pledged time and time again to combat piracy?

What is to say that those phrases don't have a more specific meaning in Chineese (I don't know Chinese, so I don't know). English is a very vague language as it is and the Chineese mindset is very different from the Anglosaxian-American.

Well, I know Chinese. While the mindset may be different, "non-harmonious" and "speech against the government" are worthlessly ambiguous (or beautifully malleable, depending on your perspective) in both languages. If arbitrary censorship is what you're after, wouldn't broad, vague legislation be precisely the right tool?

This is the free-speech equivalent of "enemy combatant" -- newspeak that conveniently means whatever your agenda wants it to.

In Canada, are you afraid of the government disliking you for some reason and then reviewing your internet usage and history to find something to prosecute you under?

In America, I am increasingly afraid of this happening. With the laws that require ISPs and internet search companies to maintain records for longer and longer periods of time, as well as the use of National Security Letters by the federal government to obtain that information, this is more likely than ever before. When the government can access all of your online history without oversight and without your knowledge, it sets up perfectly for abuse.

It means "not in harmony with..." - "harmony" is a concept that has a long history in Chinese culture, and translating it into English loses most of its meaning. In my experience it is something that makes excellent sense to a Chinese, even if it doesn't seem obvious to an American. Apart from that, is it not simply ill-will on your part when you claim not to understand what is meant? To me it seems obvious that it means "not in harmony with whatever general principles", in which case it becomes simply a

So in one case, a state Attorney General issues an inappropriate subpoena to try to stop internet criticism, it's obviously a ridiculous failure, and the headline in the newspaper is "Stunning Abuse of Power". He may even lose the election because of it.

In the other case, the national government issues an official policy stating that online criticism of the state will not be tolerated and perpetrators will be jailed. The newspapers all support the government because it owns them. This won't impact elections, because they don't have any.

Somehow, I am not having difficulty distinguishing these. Attempts to quash free speech ought to to be called out and combated. If you live in PA, you ought to vote against this tool. But come on: If you're trying to claim Pennsylvania is at all comparably oppressive to China, you're crazy.

On the other hand, if you're trying to point out that the're is nothing magical about being an American; that totalitarian tools can rise to power and gain the support of PA Republicans as easily as Chinese Communists; that our vastly superior freedoms are only the result of historical luck and constant vigilance... then I'm with you, obviously.

Complete Freedom of speech... with the minor exception that (from the whitepaper):
no organization or individual may produce, duplicate, announce or disseminate information having the following contents: being against the cardinal principles set forth in the Constitution; endangering state security, divulging state secrets, subverting state power and jeopardizing national unification; damaging state honor and interests; instigating ethnic hatred or discrimination and jeopardizing ethnic unity; jeopardizing

The problem is that criticizing the government is one of the primary reasons to have the notion of "freedom of speech".

I would think that the primary reason for having the notion of freedom of speech is to point out and criticize use and abuse of power. In the colonial America around 1776, the abuse of power came directly or indirectly from governmental power (the English king). Today, there's also use and abuse of power from private and public companies.

Look also at guilt and burden of evidence in civil vs. criminal cases: in civil cases, the verdict is decided based on a "preponderance of evidence" (51-49); in criminal

but I think the only meaningful difference is that citizens cannot criticise the government -and don't get me wrong, that's a big difference

That's more than just a big difference - there is one and only one truly important aspect of freedom of speech, and that is the right to criticize the government. I'm not saying other things aren't important to talk about, but any other law can be changed as long as you have citizens who care and have the right to criticize the current laws, so that right is what is truly important.

Laws and regulations clearly prohibit the spread of information that contains content subverting state power, undermining national unity, [or] infringing upon national honor and interests.

read that carefully. it's subjective enough to cover just about anything. for example, say you start taking about porn... does that infringe on national honor? perhaps you want to discuss middle eastern politics. does your view go against national interests? maybe.

it sounds like you might be a chinese citizen, so considering your interpretation of that above, i suggest you go try our your new found freedom and see how far you get. please report back to us and let us know.

Do Chinese people enjoy freedom of speech on the Internet in a substantively different way than we do?

Yes. The Chinese government engages in an active propaganda/disinformation campaign in an effort to rewrite history. Search for Tiananmen Square in a mainland Chinese search engine, and you will find lots of info on the place itself, but likely not so much on the violent crackdown in 1989, thanks to the government.

What is freedom of speech but the acknowledgment that controversial, unpopular, or provocative ideas nonetheless have a right to be aired in the public sphere?What is the Chinese way of pursuing social harmony but the active suppression of controversial, unpopular, and provocative ideas from being aired in the public sphere?

I recognize that the Chinese government has improved vastly, especially over the last 2 decades.But, contrary to your claim, the Chinese government does indeed oppose freedom of speech -

Also, not to be pedantic or anything, but I believe the original quote is:

Homer: Oh, Lisa, I know how you feel. Did you know that when I was in grade school, I had a bully problem myself?(whip pan past a screen full of hippie daisies and psychedelic colors to the 1970s where a preteen Homer has a preteen Smithers pinned to a wall of lockers with his fist drawn back)Teenage Homer (singing): Everybody was (as he's punching Smithers in the stomach): kung-fu-fighting!(Smithers moans as a prete

The RIAA's claims, for all their outsized lunacy and frothy-mouthed legalese, are a) plainly ludicrous on their face, and b) finite in size, albeit gigantic.

China's claims are couched in far more reasonable language, but since they lay claim to the free speech rights of over a billion people, I would argue that their claim is smaller in total numbers, but larger in actual impact and value.

So they presume their conclusion: that Communism is a good thing and any excess in the defense of it is valid.

Quinn: "I think the great struggle is all made up...the only thing we're struggling against is him."Debbie: "So wait, you're saying Communism is bad?"Quinn: "What are you, two years old? Hasn't history proven that Marx's vision of an egalitarian utopia is unattainable, inevitably creating an oligarchy more oppressive to the proletariat than the bourgeoisie it vilifies?"Stormy: "I have to pee."

The word "freedom" in legal contexts means not only that the government won't try to stop you from doing what you're free to do, but also that the government won't punish you for doing it. That's the standard definition Slashdot, and the rest of the world, has been operating under ever since the idea of freedom became important. No loopholes here.

The paper also claims some questionable superlatives such as 'China is one of the countries suffering most from hacking.'

I believe that Chinese, more than in any other countries, are all using Windows, and have a very poor knowledge of computing in general. Nearly all (if not simply all) banking access are windows only, and so are so many other websites. As a consequence, I wouldn't be surprised if the rate of trojaned workstation was a way higher in China, and simply considering the amount of people in

Just because they censor the web doesn't mean they stop Chinese saying what ever they want over the web. It just stops other Chinese hearing/seeing everything they want over the web. Plus there are about 200 odd countries so even if China only just makes it into the list of the top 20 most hacked countries, it still means China is one of the most hacked as that would mean being in the top 10%.

Which I certainly don't see as a problem. Don't get me wrong, I think racism is a horrible, horrible thing, but I think it an equally horrible situation when people can be legally fined or jailed just for saying offensive things - racist or no.

That's the problem with too many groups today. People have no capacity to separate activities which they find DISTASTEFUL, from activities which they believe should be ILLEGAL. To many it's all just one in the same. Growing up in the south, it's basically what I'v

On the positive side, this 31-page document might be offered as an operating guide for businesses, like Google, looking to understand exactly what the law is surrounding the Internet in China. The document is a rare glimpse of transparency in China's regulations. (emphasis added)

Actually, China issues documents like this all the time. They don't normally represent glimpses of transparency because they're in no way binding on the government. That is, you could follow all the substantive recommendations (if there even are any) and still be deemed to have "undermined national unity" or "infringed upon national honor" based on nothing but the PRC's desire to get you.
Thus the first sentence above is apt but the second is questionable. Might this be a glimpse of transparency? Only time will tell. If companies carefully following the guidelines available manage not to run afoul of the PRC government, then the answer will be yes. Otherwise, it's no glimpse of transparency at all, and even muddies the waters a bit more than was already the case.

That is, you could follow all the substantive recommendations (if there even are any) and still be deemed to have "undermined national unity" or "infringed upon national honor" based on nothing but the PRC's desire to get you.

I am really sick of people making the internet out to be something it is not. The Internet is a bunch of protocols that facilitates end to end communication to the boundaries of it's network. It's as transparent as indoor plumbing. All it does is connect a user to services, it is not a information super-highway (urgh), an oracle of all human knowledge or a portent of the kurzweilian singularity.

If one want to talk about those things you can talk about the services and their patrons that operate over the i

My car is technically a pile of metal, pastic, cloth, and oil, but it can also be a advanced mobility enchancer. The internet wasn't created to be an information super-highway, but that doesn't mean it's not that and more. You are a fool if you don't think the internet allows massive amounts of information to get around the world.

Some time ago, I saw a quote from some old sage to the effect that libraries contain the summary of all human wisdom -- and much of its foolishness. It occurs to me that the same situation has developed on the Internet, but several orders of magnitude greater. Of course, since the Internet took off, the sum total of human wisdom probably hasn't grown all that much. So we should conclude that that, while the Internet may now contain a summary of all human wisdom, that summary is buried deeply in many orders of magnitude more foolishness.

But consider what was predicted for television back in its early days, and what it developed into, I suppose this should have been expected for the Internet, too. The main difference here is that with television, the concentration of control into a corporate heirarchy was able to effectively eject most of the wisdom stuff, since that has never been as profitable as foolishness. This never worked with libraries, because they couldn't be organized into a controlled heirarchy. The Internet is even more impossible to control, since any person or small group able to set up a few links (wired or wireless) can establish their own small Internet playground outside the control of anyone. This allows for the aggregation of wisdom by the small crowds interested in such arcanae. It also allows the aggregation of anything else by other crowds interested in them.

But anyway, we should make sure the phrase "crystallization of human wisdom" reaches the attention of all the comedians we can send it to. It has a great potential, especially coming from a Chinese government committee.

If, as the paper claims, the Internet is the 'crystallization of human wisdom', then my recent purchase of a controlling interest in the world's leading cat photography company means I can retire early.

"Spend time with corrupt, homicidal political figures, and you'll hear a lot of self-pity. What kind of man throws political enemies in prison, and tortures them to death? Usually it's a guy who feels so sorry for himself, he feels justified doing anything. Killers, by and large, are whiny losers. But that doesn't make them any less dangerous."

An old school friend of mine is in China teaching at a university (important to note he is not a tramp around the world teaching english type, he is a Historian) He writes a blog also and often notes that he must use many different ways to publish works or even post to facebook/twitter/otr social media. He does not really write on current Chinese events but at most makes comparisons between history and modern events without condemning current policies. I see their censorship as fact and the clear contradict

China has declared the Internet to be 'the crystallization of human wisdom'

So the Chinese Government finally admits that they are officially acting on behalf of and protecting their general population from wisdom. Heaven knows that the Chinese Government is the defacto expert on that very subject, and are no doubt the most practised in the art of 'head in the sand policy' of any society.

I think you misunderstand, the move to capitalism is entirely reason for the "harmonious society" doctrine. Back in the day, communism was supposed to be about waging class warfare to establish a classless society. According to the CPC, communist ideology actually means promoting class harmony in developing the market economy.